If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

I have idea. Why bother, just write "Code for our proprietary systems for free" and you are set. At least you won't lie

Most companies that develope open source software use permissive licences like Apache and BSD. It makes developing open source software easier and therefor more compelling. So yes, it kinda makes sense.

Comment

Most companies that develope open source software use permissive licences like Apache and BSD. It makes developing open source software easier and therefor more compelling. So yes, it kinda makes sense.

You can license under LGPL and dynlink your blob to the open code.
You can license under GPL and call open code from your blob.
You can dual/tripple/quad/etc license the project in GPL/../... This will assure the code is still protected from being closed up and unlawfully used by competition.
You can just license in GPL and gain income from implementation, coding, adaptation, sponsoring.

Or you can license in BSD - this would strip the right of its openness.
Yes, companies use BSD, Apache etc. But not "most" and it does not change the fact I mentioned a sentence ago. Anyway, you are free to use whatever license you like, it is these BSD BullS lies that make me angry.

As of GPL, it is highly compatible license, as long as you don't close up things, you are legit. It was designed as a license to protect freedom, not only to advertise it. We have BSD for that.

Comment

Anyway, you are free to use whatever license you like, it is these BSD BullS lies that make me angry..

I fail to see what the "bullshit lies are. It's a fact that BSD style licences are easier for companies because it doesn't entitle them for anything. It's also true that BSD is more free licence than GPL because you can do what ever you like with it. GPL protects the freedom of the code with the cost of its freedom. Apache seems to be the de facto open source licence for just about corporate open source projects from web technologies to mobile nowadays. Recent high profile projects could be OpenStack, OpenOffice, Android and webOS for example.

Comment

I fail to see what the "bullshit lies are. It's a fact that BSD style licences are easier for companies because it doesn't entitle them for anything.

Yes, bullsh!t companies like it very much when there is NO responsibility. Yes. Lower costs - better. Cheap genetically modified soy, causing cancer; glutamate and favourings, causing allergies; palm oil, causing severe blood vessel damage.
But its not the point, the point is - seek companies that actually respect you. Which means - BSD licenses are NOT easier for companies, but EASIER for companies that LIKE TO DO bullsh!t.
Its good when you have zero responsibility and fool control.
This is true. And this is false. It depends. For good companies - it is false.

Apache seems to be the de facto open source licence for just about corporate open source projects from web technologies to mobile nowadays. Recent high profile projects could be OpenStack, OpenOffice, Android and webOS for example.

Apache has long history and is ok with this. I have no problem with Apache, they picked it up, they think it suits them, so - no problem. Not mine problem.
But Web technologies to Mobile... ugh, no. Its GPL.
High profile project of trying to survive under pressure from Oracle, like a left by everyone wreck thanks solely to politic of its owner, with name OpenOffice.. Yeah. High profile garbage.

Android and WebOS... Answer one rhetorical question please - do you recieve this products with BSD or Apache license? No. With which? With proprietary license. Why? Because BSD and Apache licenses fail here. Why would company use BSD/Apache license, advertise it, yet release the product with completely other license instead?!

Because they need free students. A SOLE reason for picking this license. After that, its packaged nicely, blobbified and sold for money those students pray to get.

I have no problem with that, but I have problem when they try to conceal it and lie about it.

Btw, other field where BSD-like licenses may be beneficial are component-only parts (not OS), which target maximum platform support. Because people do not care about anything here - just like public domain; except the sole imprint of their code binded together with their name - till the time its stripped during conversion into blob, because they can use it as resumee of their work, only as that, not as something serious, something that could be worth protecting from uncredited usage, there the BSD-like license is sufficient.

Comment

So, if it advertises itself as free, yet does nothing to protect freedom - what kind of license is this? Public domain.

Public domain is even more free.
I would prefer public domain, but it is not possible.
Copyleft licenses are good for bigger projects, like gimp and firefox, but not for standard C library and small (most of them are shorter than GPL) posix utilities.

Comment

@crazycheese: Could you please focus on the core points and stop writing completely pointless text with no proper arguments? You also try to separate your own opinion from it because no one really gives a fuck about those. Then you could also check your facts before posting.

I had three points:

1. BSD is easier for companies than GPL. This is undoutably true in theory and in practise. It doesn't require you do anything and it's legally understandable.
2. BSD is more free than GPL. As long as you don't go redefining the word "free" then this is also absolutely true because it allows you to do more.
3. Apache/BSD is extremely popular for corporate software. This then again is statically true.

No matter how much bullshit you spew it doesn't change any of these. Your post was full of such idiocity that I'm seriously not going to waste more of my time on it.